Atmospheric and accomplished. Quality. 4*

Terrible stuff really, why is there so much talking!? It's crazy someone decided that was a good idea. They recorded it, listened back to it and said "yeah, love it leave it all on the album". So fucking annoying. Why is this on this list?! 1.5*

Fairly bog standard 90s r&b asides from superfans don't think anyone is still listening to this. Totally inoffensive stuff 2*

3.5 *

3*

3.5*

3.5*

Of it's time, clearly influential but now very dated. Sounds like iron maiden, which is a bad thing. 2*

Impressive technically, overly long 3*

One of the few nu metal albums that isn't an embarrassment 3*

Never noticed how many annoying samples and instruments Basement Jaxx used until now 2*

Has continued to confirm to me that anyone who claims a Velvet Underground album as their favourite is the worst kind of tedious "arty" bore. Unlistenable for the most part, this noisy rock sound has been done 1,000 times better since 1*

Atmospheric and accomplished. Quality. 4*

Just a little more variety and this would be an utter classic, regardless a great album 4*

Great music by great musicians. 4*

Mark Langean is a great singer, but the material is very ordinary. Strange why this was included. 2.5*

I could see how someone would like this, loud and intense but not for me 2*

Made writing a hit song look easy on some of these. Some songs are so-so though 3*

I'm neither a teen or angsty, so it doesn't appeal to me that much but I see why people enjoy it. 3*

After 1,000 tepid copycats since its release still one of the best singer/songwriter albums out there. 4.5*

Meh 2.5*

Can see it having its fans but just not for me 2.5*

Appreciate what they are trying here, but doesn't land quite right for me 2.5*

Indicative of better things to come 3*

Tough to hate this, strong funk influences with a Brasilian flavour. great sound 4*

Doesn't feel like it does Sam Cooke justice. Lot of chatter, intros, and then the actual song content is quite brief. Shame, it's great what is little there is. 3*

If this wasn't Bob Dylan would anyone care about this album? It's put together fine but very hard to get excited about this. The rave reviews are baffling to me. 2.5*

The music hall influences I could leave, I don't get the fascination with it, but the rest is great. 3.5*

Seems like every song on this could have been a single. Might get a bit of hate for being so overplayed but still a classic 5*

Not as a perfect as an album as is typically made out, one or two duds I reckon. But still, some absolute classics there as well, quality. 4.5*

Sounds quintessentially PJ Harvey, although her posh accent is quite jarring against the loud guitars sometimes! Still very good, worth a relisten 4*

Like hearing songs from various different bang average musicals jammed together. There is a reason some albums are obscure, tedious. 2*

Can really hear the influence on bob Dylan. Woody Guthrie did it better but still solid 3.5*

Impossible to say anything more 5*

It's the smiths, never could get into them. Some decent singles but was never bothered by the albums. 2.5*

Long, so long. There was a visual performance to go along with this, maybe it worked better in an actual live context. Endless guitar and effects noodling is tough to enjoy without being on drugs. 1.5*

It's good but I think Santana has retroactively made this sound dated by just rehashing this sound over and over again through the years with little interpretation. 3.5*

Crazy to go back and read contemporary reviews of this. 90s was crazy for genre mash ups and this is a great example of some of the rubbish put out. Lyrically, it is relentlessly cringe faux gangster rubbish. The music is somewhere between Muzak and throw away chill house samples. Scooby Snacks is fun I suppose, rest is crap. 1.5* Also, free John Gotti?!

Strange choice over discovery in my opinion but amazing all the same. Still sounds completely fresh 4.5*

Hard to fault this. 5*

Dreamy 60s throwbacks, nice but forgettable 3*

I feel like there is something of emperors new clothes about Nick Cave. You would look foolish to dislike him. But I can't get past the overwrought lyrics and spoken word like delivery. The music is fantastic though. I would listen to an instrumental version of this no problem and it somewhat saves it. 3*

2nd Nick Cave album in a row, what are the odds? Quite high I believe, in any case like the other the musicianship here is great but I just can't get past Nick Cave's singing and wordy lyrics, just too much. 3*

80s synths, if that sounds good to you then this is a classic. Otherwise 3*

Like songs from a musical, not for me but I can see others enjoying it 3*.

Sublime soul songs, didn't expect anything else. 4.5*

Feels more like a soul instrumental album, but very well put together, but I feel could have been trimmed to something very tight 3.5*

The sort of album you think is there anyone out there who actually super into this? Not bad but very tepid stuff 2.5*

A classic for good reason, a little overlooked sometimes for bigger hits. Let down a little by one or two duds, the bob Dylan song in particular 4*

Indie singer/songwriter who launched 1,000 imitators. Still holds up well, but not a sound I'd go for. 3.5*

Could well be the best band name ever. Album is good, would encourage checking out others 3.5*

If anyone ever asks what the 90s was like just play them this. 3.5*

Terrible stuff really, why is there so much talking!? It's crazy someone decided that was a good idea. They recorded it, listened back to it and said "yeah, love it leave it all on the album". So fucking annoying. Why is this on this list?! 1.5*

Solid outlaw rock 4*

Fairly standard punk rock, much better was to come 3*

Awful stuff, England has a real cottage industry of crap like this 1*

Although the singing is of typically high quality the material is just aimless and meandering. Let's the whole thing down and there is better out there. 2.5*

Better than Courtney Loves reputation would have you believe, seems obscured from her very public persona that this is actually decent 3.5*

Quality as expected 4*

It certainly has a pop charm, dated somewhat now I feel. If you like Green Day then this is one of the better ones otherwise 3*

A decent sound but all sounds very similar and blends into one. OK 3*

Perfectly fine 60s pop rock by why listen to this when there is far more interesting stuff out there from this time period. Sunny Afternoon is an utter classic though 3.5*

There always seems to some aversion to hooks or chorus with Peter Gabriel. Hearing a full album like this does get a bit tiresome. Style wise it's a bit everywhere, feels like he is trying to string together a lot of ideas, sometimes a bit jarring. But it is at the very least well sung and performed. 3*

Laid back sound, demonstrates bob Marley's range well. But does blend a bit into one. 3.5*

Self indulgent really, do people really enjoy listening to this the whole way through? 2*

Great instrumentation but some songs overstay their welcome a bit.

A bit everywhere in terms of sound but couldn't get into this 2.5*

Reading the description of bands like this always sounds interesting and then it's always 80s synths with droning English singing. So many bands sound like this, what was going on in the 80s?! Tedious for the most part 2*

Classic Neil young 4*

An example of a album is so well put together its better than the sum of its parts. Fantastic 5*

Very much in the Björk mode, tendency to blend into one, although I wonder if that's intentional. Well put together in any case 3.5*

Hard to argue against a 5 here 5*

Unfortunately for these guys the who, the Beatles, mc5 and a lot of others where contemporaries of theirs, they were never going to out do them. The white album was released the month before as an example! Solid all the same 3.5*

Classic stuff, barely a miss here 5*

Good, but better bowie albums out there 3*

Boring prog rock, can't understand the fascination with this 2*

What everyone with a synth was trying and failing to do in the 80s. Shows electronic instruments could have depth and melody 4*

Fairly bog standard 90s r&b asides from superfans don't think anyone is still listening to this. Totally inoffensive stuff 2*

Brought a whole new sound, would be developed massively from this though 3.5*

Really captures the live atmosphere of a great blues gig by one of the legends of the genre 4*

Charming narrative driven country. Interesting to hear an alternative to in the pines compared to the famous Nirvana version 3.5*

Fairly tepid 60s throwback. Another album to ponder why is it on this list? 2.5*

Not something I would enjoy repeatedly but definitely see the appeal 3.5*

A bit meandering in parts but still very good, some classics here of course 3.5*

A few songs go a bit nowhere but then there is some absolutely classics here too. 4.5*

Fairly tepid blues rock, makes you wonder what was the point of putting this out? The less said about the woeful Bob Marley cover the better. 2*

Was expecting to like this a lot more, not particularly wrong here but nothing to get excited about either 3*

Prog rock noodling for the most part, I just find this genre of music hard to like. The production is crisp though, shame about the musical content. 2*

Have a preference for Ride the lightning personally. it's does drag on a little on songs. It is however still a classic album, the vast majority of metal bands could only dream of creating this. 4.5*

I can't decide whether this is good or not. They have a style of their own, can see people being super into this but not one id revisit. 3*

Folsom prison is better and this was all too brief, shame although what is there is excellent 4*

The sort of thing you would hope the album generator would highlight. A mix of country/alt rock/ jazz and everything else. It's well put together. Horrendous album cover but not that it matters... 4*

Not nearly as bad as I expecting, but does highlight how much Johnny Marr brought to the smiths. 3*

I predict sometime in the future there will be a fairly dramatic revision by critics of how many "classic" albums were released in 60s and 70s when rock was in its infancy. People will come to realize that it just happened to be released at the time and is not that good. This album will be first in the firing squad. Boring blues rock numbers with one or two good songs. 2.5*

I find the synths and what not of nu-wave hard to get into but this was actually really good. 4*

Some decent singles mixed with fairly pedestrian blue eyed soul. Groovin' is an amazing song all the same. 3.5*

Sort of what you would expect from Slipknot I'm sure if your in to this type of thing it's enjoyable 3*

I think any decent artist should reflect on why they are presenting their art to the public and think "what am I adding to the medium"? Because of Dion or Phil Spector did they would have not released this boring overproduced shite on the world. Awful 1*

Quality jazz, well put together 5*

5* obviously, but the one thing this album does, which is great, is that it shows country music can have all the urgency and passion of any other genre. Sometimes I feel country music is thought of something dower or downbeat and this is certainly not.

All the worst instincts of 60s rock captured in one album. Tedious 1.5*

If I was in a bar a few beers deep I could enjoy this. But if you are going to do any album that so closely sticks to one genre, ie southern rock, you can't afford to do such a long album. It gets stale. 2*

Appreciate the importance of this album but it's not one I can get into, although I would not argue it's bad. 3.5*

I do really like this album be it has a few too many dud moments to make it a full five stars, but great nonetheless 4.5*

I really don't like the first two songs on this but the rest is great, so that lets it down slightly but I reckon this is his best album. 4.5*

Hard to imagine so many massive hit songs on one album 5*

Would be need to be a certain mood from this but still excellent 5*

The importance of this band is understandable but the material is ultimately a bit weak, shame feel like there on the cusp of a good album here 2*

Enjoyable bombastic jazz, I presume this is what the cover hints at! 4*

The temptations have some classic songs but they are not on this album. The marvin Gaye cover has been done a lot and to be honest it's just...fine. nothing amazing here to be honest but was an enjoyable listen 3*

The music itself is fairly well done but it can't get past the woeful lyrics. They really have dated badly, the misogyny seems excessive even for the time. Milky cereal may be the worst rap song ever created. 2*

A real mixed bag of genres, sounds like they are having fun but really lacks consistency. 2.5*

Baffling choice for this list, nothing at all remarkable about this. Singing in a very affected voice does grate after a while 2*

Not as tedious as you would imagine going into a 20 minute prog rock epic. Production is great and doubtless good musicians but I don't think it comes together to something satisfyingly cohesive 3*

As usual very well put together album from Marvin Gaye, it is all a bit in the same tempo a small bit of variety would have been a 5 but instead 4.5*

Always found a man needs a maid to be a strange song but the rest here is excellent 5*

The germ of a good album here but falls flat too often, strange this in included given Beck's other superior albums included 3*

One or two ideas stretched to its limit on a single album. It's almost impossible to distinguish one song from another. 2*

Not expecting the mix of music this contained and the unexpected Irish influences. Full of ideas and well executed 4*

The quintessential Bowie album feels wrong to give this anything but 5*

Reminds me of local radio, they would play crap like this presumably it was cheaper than playing something well known. Or they had terrible taste. Anyway, early 80s easy listening, hateful stuff 1.5*

Theres some great Neil Young albums out there but this isn't one of them, still a fine album but nothing amazing 3*

Poignant folk songs, expertly put together 4*

Can never get into this 70s New York punk, but this album is probably the best example of that sound. If your into this its up there as one of the best otherwise 3.5*

This album is why you sign up for a process like this. 4*

Could see it having it's fans but is it really that remarkable? The slow r&b numbers at the end really feel tacked on should have been left off. 3*

Psychedelic mix of rock and other influences, nice to hear someone try something a bit new. 3.5*

Orbital presents "2000's DVD menu background music : the soundtrack"

Certainly one of the best post punk albums, a genre I'm not keen on, but they make it work. Their is something of The Doors about this that I can't quite place why...4*

Somewhat disowned by Radiohead but this still stands up really, most indie band from the 90s couldn't even touch this 5*

Fairly average glam rock heavily inspired by David Bowie, with one or two highlights. Would love to hear a compelling argument to why anyone would listen to this when you have Bowie. Great cover though! 3*

Reasonable take on folk Americana but nothing remarkable, once again a bit strange it's included here 3.5*

Ethereal emo 3.5*

Almost a modern classic just a few dud songs let it down, but still a great album 4.5*

Very cleared following on from Ziggy stardust, does have a feeling of this was on that albums cutting room floor. Still some great songs although the jazzy interludes I could leave 3.5*

Found this to be quiet boring, the droning vocals do not help. Hard to even consider one highlight. But not particularly offensive either though 2*

Preferred this to music from big pink but lacks something I can't quiet put my finger on 3.5*

It's got an anger which maybe I don't appreciate, but this is an archetype for all the imitators that came later. Still one of the best 4.5*

Competent late 80s indie, may have been groundbreaking at the time but difficult to see now 3*

It's a struggle to produce music that is mostly electronic based and not sound dated particularly decades later, but Depeche Mode have avoided that and this still holds up really well. 4*

Competent and earnestly preformed but few standout tracks. Reminds of the typical pub bore who contends that such and such modern music isn't "real" music and then go on to claim this album as an example of the "real" music in their mind. Makes for a tedious discussion no one bothers to argue and they go on believing themselves correct forever. 3.5*

I suppose if you are into post punk you might like this but found it a bit meandering, ok in parts 2.5*

There is undoubtedly something new here for the time. Proto post punk but it gones on and on. Some judicious editing could have really made this something special, but now dated I feel. 2.5*

I think negative reviews of these are always unfair, calling it "lager" rock. How many bands could write an album of songs which a large number of still resonate with people decades later? There is a certain element of snobbery about it. 5*

The acoustic/ electric spilt works out well I feel. One of two songs are a bit wordy but if are someone who appreciates Neil Young's singular singing style this is a decent album by any means 4*

A lot more compelling than their debut, production is better here but still not perfect by any means, maybe people still weren't sure how to produce this type of music. Still, really good. 4*

Now I know where various sitcoms and ads during the 2000 got their music from! Fairly lack lustre stuff, another one for the why is this on this list pile 2.5*

Painful, I just can't believe people like this, I do not get it or why in fact Sting is as famous as he is, great PR maybe? 2*

I was interested to here this but this is some really songs where they are trying to create more a vibe than a song. If you are big into funk you might get something out of this, but honestly I wasn't keen 2.5*

Not that it matters but a fairly woeful idea for a cover in my opinion. In any case, let's be real, if this wasn't David Bowie this wouldn't be on this list. Enjoyable in parts both not something I would return to 3*

To be honest I find the parts that don't have a lot of guitar to be the highlights. They are few and far between though. I think this process really has given me a distaste for 60-70s straight blues rock. All fairly boring really isnt it? Anyway, still well preformed and maybe one of the better albums worth of music like this. 3.5*

It's obvious in parts this has been overdubbed with studio recordings, debatable this is a "live" album. Still some great versions of thin Lizzy's hits here, some surpassing the album version. 4*

Some part of me thinks this would have been better if they didn't overlay the effects and just played the songs straight. Still some great songs and do you realise is definitely top ten songs of that decade. 3.5*

Forgotten what a classic this album, back in our minds is probably the only sort of dud here rest are all classics 4.5*

Can hear the cleat improvement over the previous album, some of the best 60-70s folk music you are going to hear 5*